When @aetiology @gorskon attack straw men & turn off tweet replies, it suggests they lack confidence in their convictions. The question is simple: Is a #lableak plausible? Or is it a “debunked” “conspiracy theory,” as it was described by the media in 2020?https://twitter.com/htown_Joe/status/1400598827015589890 …
-
Show this thread
-
What
@aetiology said. Please listen to her. When people limit who can comment or reply to statements, it suggests they may have reasons to do so.@Twitter allowed us to limit replies to followers, people tagged, or no one. https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/11/twitter-now-lets-everyone-limit-replies-to-their-tweets/ … Why? Networked abuse campaigns1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @digiphile @aetiology and
Threats can be reported and Twitter will take action; replies can be ignored. Wanting to be able to speak your mind without hearing opposing arguments is not an admirable trait, no matter the reason. If someone turns off replies, they open themselves up to justified criticism.
5 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @htown_Joe @digiphile and
"Twitter will take action". Are you new here? Any idea how many hundreds of these I have in my inbox? The privilege of some people, I swear. I don't owe *anyone* my time at the expense of my mental health.pic.twitter.com/o65tT257p7
2 replies 2 retweets 28 likes
Yep. The sense of entitlement people like Joe exhibit never ceases to amaze or annoy me.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.